2008-08-07 News
 |
|
|
| by Jacob Shafer | |
 |
August 07, 2008 First, a disclaimer: It’s not often we find ourselves defending corporate retail behemoths and we take no pleasure in it—but then, attending Liquor Control meetings will do strange things to your sense of right and wrong.
Here’s the scene: A rather nervous and soft-spoken middle manager for the Kahului KMart (or Big K, or whatever they’re calling themselves these days) was sweating under the glare of the LC Adjudication Board. About a year ago, a cashier at his store sold a six-pack to a minor decoy during a sting operation. Layering on the illegality, the cashier was only 17 years old.
After stumbling through his explanation, the KMart rep was subjected to a stern lecture about the inadequacies of both his answers and his store’s training and ID-checking policies. He offered little in the way of a rebuttal, and no one in the room expected the board to do anything but penalize; KMart’s no contest plea to the charges guaranteed as much. What was somewhat surprising was the severity of the penalty: A $2,000 fine and a seven-day suspension of the store’s liquor license.
Now, no one is going to shed any tears for KMart over a couple grand and a week of lost alcohol sales; a company of their size and heft can absorb that without blinking. But a body like the LC has to strive for consistency in its rulings.
During the same session, ABC Stores (a smaller chain) was brought up on almost identical charges, plead no contest, and was hit with only a $2,000 fine, half of it suspended.
Did the board slap KMart harder merely because it’s a huge company? We’ll never know, since their deliberations take place behind closed doors. But when two entities commit almost the exact same offense (though admittedly KMart’s was complicated by the underage clerk) and are given such disproportionate punishments, you’ve got to wonder about fairness.
|
 |
Reader Feedback
ABC
August 07, 2008 | 10:33 PM
I suppose a suspension on ABC's license would cripple them then? Perhaps a business model that has stores operating across the street from each other somehow doesn't qualify them as "Big" enough? Please... it's not like they're a mom and pop. They are the Wal-Mart of tourist convenience stores.
Kukui
so
August 08, 2008 | 04:55 AM
why'd they get a lesser punishment? probably b/c even tho they're a chain they're locally based. kmart's big out of town. but like the column says, no tears here.
chris
Read the Law
August 08, 2008 | 08:19 PM
KMart got the fine and the suspension because there were TWO violations of STATE LAW.
Papamo
the lc
August 09, 2008 | 12:18 PM
has discretion in that case to decide punishment. they could give anything from a slap on the wrist up to a maximum 2k fine or suspension of liscence. especially if its a first time offense they dont have to give the 7 day suspension, which is pretty stiff penalty. not sure if i agree with the implication it was because k mart was a big company. seems like lc just gets hairs up their ass for no good reason sometime.
beer man, wailuku
More of the Same LC Madness
August 12, 2008 | 01:27 PM
Arbitrary and capricious - that's the LC for you. I'll betcha there's a dartboard or a wheel of fortune in the room whenever LC makes a decision at the end of a closed session. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd be curious to know whether the Kahului Kmart or the ABC Stores consortium rakes in more $$$ on Maui. My wager's on ABC.
Wine man, Upcountry